Impact of large language models on peer review opinions from a fine-grained perspective: Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.19578v1
• Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:33:53 GMT
• Title: Impact of large language models on peer review opinions from a fine-grained perspective: Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI
• Abstract summary: We examine changes in peer review reports for academic articles following the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>The results indicate that following the emergence of LLMs, peer review texts have become longer and more fluent, with increased emphasis on summaries and surface-level clarity.<n>At the same time, attention to deeper evaluative dimensions, such as originality, replicability, and nuanced critical reasoning, has declined.
• Score: 12.04501354723317
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), the academic community has faced unprecedented disruptions, particularly in the realm of academic communication. The primary function of peer review is improving the quality of academic manuscripts, such as clarity, originality and other evaluation aspects. Although prior studies suggest that LLMs are beginning to influence peer review, it remains unclear whether they are altering its core evaluative functions. Moreover, the extent to which LLMs affect the linguistic form, evaluative focus, and recommendation-related signals of peer-review reports has yet to be systematically examined. In this study, we examine the changes in peer review reports for academic articles following the emergence of LLMs, emphasizing variations at fine-grained level. Specifically, we investigate linguistic features such as the length and complexity of words and sentences in review comments, while also automatically annotating the evaluation aspects of individual review sentences. We also use a maximum likelihood estimation method, previously established, to identify review reports that potentially have modified or generated by LLMs. Finally, we assess the impact of evaluation aspects mentioned in LLM-assisted review reports on the informativeness of recommendation for paper decision-making. The results indicate that following the emergence of LLMs, peer review texts have become longer and more fluent, with increased emphasis on summaries and surface-level clarity, as well as more standardized linguistic patterns, particularly reviewers with lower confidence score. At the same time, attention to deeper evaluative dimensions, such as originality, replicability, and nuanced critical reasoning, has declined.

Related papers

• Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Process [11.96840383745149]
  We present a large-scale analysis of the ICLR 2024 and 2025 peer review processes.<n>We examine review scores, author-reviewer engagement, temporal patterns in review submissions, and co-reviewer influence effects.<n>Our findings show that initial scores and the ratings of co-reviewers are the strongest predictors of score changes during the rebuttal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T14:21:52Z)
• When Your Reviewer is an LLM: Biases, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Risks in Peer Review [34.067892820832405]
  This paper presents a systematic evaluation of large language models (LLMs) as academic reviewers.<n>Using a curated dataset of 1,441 papers from ICLR 2023 and NeurIPS 2022, we evaluate GPT-5-mini against human reviewers across ratings, strengths, and weaknesses.<n>Our findings show that LLMs consistently inflate ratings for weaker papers while aligning more closely with human judgments on stronger contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T00:57:50Z)
• Beyond "Not Novel Enough": Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedback [81.0031690510116]
  We present a structured approach for automated novelty evaluation that models expert reviewer behavior through three stages.<n>Our method is informed by a large scale analysis of human written novelty reviews.<n> Evaluated on 182 ICLR 2025 submissions, the approach achieves 86.5% alignment with human reasoning and 75.3% agreement on novelty conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T16:18:37Z)
• Identifying Reliable Evaluation Metrics for Scientific Text Revision [7.503795054002405]
  Traditional metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore primarily focus on similarity rather than capturing meaningful improvements.<n>We first conduct a manual annotation study to assess the quality of different revisions.<n>Then, we investigate reference-free evaluation metrics from related NLP domains.<n>We find that a hybrid approach combining LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and task-specific metrics offers the most reliable assessment of revision quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T09:00:23Z)
• The simulation of judgment in LLMs [32.57692724251287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in evaluative processes, from information filtering to assessing and addressing knowledge gaps through explanation and credibility judgments.<n>This raises the need to examine how such evaluations are built, what assumptions they rely on, and how their strategies diverge from those of humans.<n>We benchmark six LLMs against expert ratings--NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check--and against human judgments collected through a controlled experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• RevisEval: Improving LLM-as-a-Judge via Response-Adapted References [95.29800580588592]
  RevisEval is a novel text generation evaluation paradigm via the response-adapted references.<n>RevisEval is driven by the key observation that an ideal reference should maintain the necessary relevance to the response to be evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T16:50:47Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities. This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models [40.78878196872095]
  We introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm. We collect responses generated from large language models and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner. Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T17:37:31Z)
• Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models [17.13064447978519]
  This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as large language models (LLMs) Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. We propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T14:42:01Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.